WHO’S MORE FANATICAL — LEFT OR RIGHT? Responding to claims that Bush-loyalty is the ne plus ultra of the right, Marshall Wittman writes:

From his varied experience, the Moose questions whether this is true. The reality is that prominent conservatives have been critical of this President on a range of issues – the Weekly Standard has questioned Administration’s execution of the war, the National Review and the Heritage Foundation has been critical of the President’s big spending ways. And now, a range of libertarian conservatives have differed with the President on the NSA program.

Yes, there is an element of conservatism that attempts to apply a Lenninist discipline on ideological heterodoxy. In fact, the Moose was the target of their efforts. The Moose has enjoyed the distinct pleasure of being labeled both a Republican squish and a Rovian plant. But, based upon personal exposure to both sides of the political spectrum, this mammal can confidently observe that there is more tolerance for differences on the right side of the spectrum than on the left.

While Greenwald suggests that “loyalty” to Bush is the requirement for the right, the standard to to be a member in good standing of the liberal/left community is hatred of Bush. The Moose opposes most of the economic agenda of the Administration. However, he critically supports the President in the war on terror – including the NSA program. This has won the Moose the visceral opprobrium of the left. Because in the left wing universe, one must oppose everything the President supports. The truth is that a good part of the left believes that George W. Bush is a greater threat to America than Osama bin Laden.

I think that the part of the Left that feels that way is relatively small, but it has a disproportionate impact. Meanwhile, Megan McArdle has thoughts on moderation:

Now, again, perhaps I’m just insensitive to these things, but I haven’t found Ms Althouse to be an apologist for Bush. She clearly does not hate his policies as much as my more liberal commenters do. But of course, that would probably be why she voted for him. She, and Instapundit (who is also being singled out for opprobrium), have criticized the administration; it’s just that when they criticize the administration, it’s in a tone of “The Bush administration is doing something I don’t like”, rather than “The Great Satan is again unleashing the powers of Hell to destroy a Once Great Nation.” I haven’t noticed her, or Instapundit, criticising the administration’s conduct of the WOT, but–I’m going out on a limb here–maybe that’s because they generally agree with it, not because they’re “apologists” for the administration.

Well, I try to avoid the whole Great Satan thing even when I’m talking about the likes of Ted Rall — which I try to avoid doing anyway on the theory that they want to be talked about — but I do try for (with mixed success) moderate language; in particular, I try to avoid name-calling aimed at individuals.

Moderate language isn’t the same as moderation in ideas, of course. My ideas (I won’t speak for Ann Althouse) aren’t particularly moderate at all, at least on an opinion-poll basis. I mean, there’s nothing moderate in this: “Personally, I’d be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons.” Then there’s the whole transhumanism thing. . . . I try to use moderate language in part because I disagree with pretty much everybody on something big. This has led to claims that I “lack fire.” (You want “fire” from a law professor?)

So why are things so polarized? Maybe it’s because even though we tend to look at radical Islam abroad, we’re in a different sort of religous war at home:

Not all leftwingers in the US are as frankly religious as Hillary Clinton, and many don’t even realise that the ideas that they champion have deep religious roots. But even for these people, being leftwing has itself become a sort of religion, with those who disagree viewed as sinister, almost demonic forces, rather than simply as individuals holding different views.

The language of righteousness and sin, if not that of redemption and grace, remains a hallmark of the purportedly secular left, though I find it no more attractive than the language of the religious right.

I don’t fit into the religious right or the religious left. But, in America, you don’t get to choose a major political party that does not have some sort of religious strain to it.

And it strikes me that one reason why politics in the US have become so much more bitter over the past couple of decades is that two rather different threads of religiosity have come to dominate the two major parties in distinct fashion, where each party had previously incorporated major components of both. This has turned political battles into quasi-religious ones.

Add to this mix the inevitable effect of Jane’s Law (“The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.”) and you’ve got a recipe for polarization. That’s unfortunate, because this is a time when we’d be a lot better off without the polarization and division that we’re seeing. I’m not sure what to do about it, though.

UPDATE: Related thoughts here. Sounds like I’m screwed no matter what happens. . . .

MARK STEYN ON HUGH HEWITT: Transcript and audio here.

BRAD SMITH has joined RedState.

BLOGGING, LOVE, AND MONEY: More thoughts from The Anchoress and from Dan Riehl.

BELLSOUTH’S BROKEN PROMISE: I’ve had trouble on the line since yesterday. I filled out their online repair form and got this answer:

Thank you for contacting us regarding your telephone service. A repair report has been generated to have your trouble cleared as soon as possible but no later than 2/16/06 by 7:00 PM. Please accept our apologies for your inconvenience. We appreciate your business. Thank you for choosing BellSouth.

It’s 7:01, and nobody’s called and nothing’s happened. I’ve had good luck with them in the past, but this is pretty lame.

MORE GOOGLE BACKLASH:

W Ketchup announced today that it has cancelled all advertising with Google, including both search engine ads and content network ads. The company took this step to protest Google’s agreement to help the Communist regime in China suppress liberty and free expression in that country.

That’s more backbone than the Bush Administration has shown on this issue. (Via Molten Thought).

And, by the way, my pre-election Heinz vs. W ketchup taste test can be found here, with a followup test (“Bush Country Ketchup”) here.

THE BELMONT CLUB: “Three incidents embody, in their own ways, what the West values most of all. I’m just trying to figure out what it is.”

EUGENE VOLOKH has thoughts on censorship envy.

GATEWAY PUNDIT reports on a female reporter stoned for not wearing a headscarf at an Islamic protest.

JAMES TARANTO is defending Al Gore.

HIAWATHA BRAY sends this report from Capitol Hill:

I just got back from DC, where I covered the hearing on US Internet companies in China. Boy, those congressfolk don’t know how to cut it short! We were an hour 45 minutes into the hearing before the first witness uttered a sound. Pitiful. No WiFi in the hearing room either. All the livebloggers had to use Ethernet cable. I think it makes sense not to have wireless in government buildings, as a rule–too many security problems.

But I can’t see why they can’t hook up a router just for the occasional hearing and such.

I ended up filing my story from a nearby Starbucks. As I was finishing up, I noticed about six middle-aged, highly capable-looking men and women at a nearby table, poring over printed PowerPoint slides and various documents, tapping their Blackberries, and nattering on about the Centers for Disease Control and systems for tracking the health of the nation’s livestock. Sure enough, these guys were hard at work planning for a possible avian flu outbreak in the US. Right there, in the shadow of the Capitol, at a Starbucks.

You may laugh, but I felt proud. Stuff like this is one reason I love my country. We make fun of politicians and bureaucrats all the time; God knows I do. But a lot of these guys–probably most of them–work really hard, and think really hard and are trying desperately to keep the rest of us alive. Think about most governments throughout history–or even most governments in the world today. Political power often attracts the worst of the worst–gunsels, road agents and chiselers. We get our share here too. But I bet most of the people working for us are just like these guys. Plain good people, doing their best. I thank God I live in a country full of them. Even if they do spend too damn much of my money!

Indeed. My brother, who spends a lot more time in the third world than me, often makes this point. Despite complaints about our government, often justified ones, it works better than many. Of course, that’s partly because we complain, instead of responding with hopeless resignation.

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: A secret appropriations committee meeting?

HAROLD FORD, JR. RUNS TO THE RIGHT:

Ford said he supports the Second Amendment right to bear arms, he is against partial birth abortion, he argues we have to stay in Iraq until we get the job done and he says he was encouraged on his most recent of four visits to the war zone. He wants to end pork barrel spending and balance the budget by making every department cut spending, and he wants to reform the tax code.

It was in the area of entitlements that Ford made his boldest statements. He says we need to notify people 40 and under right now that they won’t be getting Social Security until they are 70. Increased life expectancy is threatening the solvency of the program. He also favors means testing so that those making over $300,000 a year would not receive a Social Security check. He is opposed to private accounts.

Read the whole thing.

ALL CHENEY, ALL THE TIME: Arianna Huffington is darkly proclaiming a coverup (maybe by the criminal syndicate that runs America? maybe not), Steve Martin is making light, and Hugh Hewitt is interviewing Lawrence O’Donnell about O’Donnell’s, er, speculations.

It’s hard not to agree with this summary: “Veep coverage continues to tell us more about the folks producing it than about the Veep and the Administration.”

UPDATE: Well, yeah: “But it’s more or less an open secret in Washington that Mondale liked to make Ed Muskie ‘dance.'”

AUSTIN BAY looks at the U.S.’s new offensive against the Iranian mullahs.

PODCAST BUZZ: It’s a trend!

PAJAMAS MEDIA CORRESPONDENT Andrew Marcus interviews Rep. Peter Hoekstra about all those unread Iraqi WMD documents. Hoekstra suggests parceling them out to the blogosphere. Call in the Army of Davids!

It’ll be up on the PJ Media WMD Files site shortly, but you can see a QT version here if you don’t want to wait.

Here it is, in both QuickTime and WMV versions.

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: Investor’s Business Daily editorializes:

Members of Congress have developed the earmarking process into a fine art, skillfully asking for — and getting — dollars for specific local programs in their home states and districts without actually putting their names on the requests. Last year’s mountain of earmarks — 13,997 of them — cost taxpayers $27.3 billion, says Citizens Against Government Waste.

Rep. Tom Prince, a Republican from Georgia, has introduced a sensible bill that amends House rules so that members who ask for earmarks will have to attach their names to the requests. Across the way, Sen. John McCain has introduced the Pork-Barrel Reduction Act, which has a provision that also requires the identification of lawmakers who propose earmarks.

The remainder of the bill is an attempt to make it more difficult for Congress to slip through earmarks.

Forcing disclosure won’t end the problem of earmarks. Many in Congress strut and preen over their ability to bring home the pork. Shameless lawmakers such as Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, have never been shy about admitting they squeeze taxpayers across the country to pay for pet projects that they believe make them look good back home.

Porkbusters, a group at truthlaidbear.com that is dedicated to cutting the budget, has named these gentlemen Nos. 1 and 2 in the Pork Hall of Shame, but there’s little chance that it bothers them.

Ideally, earmarks should be eliminated entirely. They are not legitimate federal expenditures. There are real people out there paying high taxes for goodies that others will avail themselves to.

Indeed. (Via Newsbeat1).

UPDATE: Assistant Majority Leader John Shadegg?

WILL BLOGGING LOSE ITS AMATEUR QUALITY? My TCS Daily column is up!

UPDATE: LaShawn Barber has more thoughts. “His latest column at Tech Central Station is called ‘Blogging: Love or Money?’ Why the dichotomy? I blog for both!” She has some thoughts on profitable niche blogging, too.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More thoughts from Rand Simberg.

HEH.

IAN SCHWARTZ has video of Dick Cheney on Brit Hume’s show, talking about his shooting accident.

WMD FILES is a new Pajamas Media blog devoted the the new discussions regarding Saddams’s weapons of mass destruction.

MORE CRUSHING OF DISSENT, this time at the University of Illinois.

POPULAR MECHANICS has been doing Katrina followup for months, and now they’re saying that recently obtained documents cast serious doubt on some of the findings of the House report. Excerpt:

We’ve given the report an initial read and found it riddled with poor logic, internal contradictions and exaggerations. . . .

For now, though, here’s a quick overview of what seems to be the report’s most troubling shortfall: consistently blaming individuals for failing to foresee circumstances that only became clear with the laser-sharp vision of hindsight.

For example, the report states:

“Fifty-six hours prior to landfall, Hurricane Katrina presented an extremely high probability threat that 75 percent of New Orleans would be flooded, tens of thousands of residents may be killed, hundreds of thousands trapped in flood waters up to 20 feet, hundreds of thousands of homes and other structures destroyed, a million people evacuated from their homes, and the greater New Orleans area would be rendered uninhabitable for several months or years.”

This statistic is referred to often, and refers to computer modeling of a direct Category 5 hurricane landfall in New Orleans. However, it’s also a distortion. According to the data the Committee itself examined, 56 hours prior to landfall, Katrina was a relatively weak Category 3 storm, heading west in the Gulf of Mexico. Over the next few hours, it began its turn north, but where the storm was going to make landfall along the Gulf Coast was any weatherman’s bet (the average 48-hour margin of error is 160 miles). In fact, it was not until the next day, Saturday, that it became more of a certainty that the hurricane was heading toward New Orleans. Furthermore, hurricane forecasters and emergency managers tell PM that until about 24 hours before landfall, hurricanes are too unpredictable to warrant the sort of blanket evacuation orders the report describes.

And according to transcripts obtained by POPULAR MECHANICS of the Sunday, August 28, videoconference between FEMA, DHS, Gulf State authorities, the National Weather Service and the White House, as late as Sunday—only 24 hours before landfall—National Hurricane Center storm tracks predicted: “There will be minimal flooding in the city of New Orleans itself.” The death tolls listed in the congressional report presuppose: A) certainty that the storm would hit New Orleans directly, and B) certainty the storm would strengthen to a Category 4 or 5. Neither of these propositions was certain 56 hours prior to landfall. And, in fact, the hurricane was a Category 3 storm when it did hit.

The Committee report also criticizes the DHS and FEMA for not including the Department of Defense in their pre-storm and immediate post-storm planning. However, the same August 28 transcript shows that DoD was included from the beginning. In reality, despite organizational shortcomings, the rescue spearheaded by the National Guard and the Coast Guard turned out to be the largest and fastest in U.S. history, mobilizing nearly 100,000 responders within three days of the hurricane’s landfall. While each of the 1072 deaths in Louisiana was a tragedy, the worst-case scenario death toll would have been 60,000.

Read the whole thing, and stay tuned for more.

UPDATE: Brendan Loy isn’t impressed.